HCR 18 – AS INTRODUCED
2011 SESSION
09/04
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 18
A RESOLUTION declaring Merrill versus Sherburne to be void and of no force.
This house concurrent resolution declares Merrill versus Sherburne (1 N.H. 99) to be void and of no force.
11-0395
09/04
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
A RESOLUTION declaring Merrill versus Sherburne to be void and of no force.
Whereas, the Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 37 states, “In the government of this State, the three essential powers thereof, to wit, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other, as the nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that chain of connection that binds the whole fabric of the Constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity;” and
Whereas, the Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 31 states, “The Legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require;” and
Whereas, the Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 32 states, “The People have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their Representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer;” and
Whereas, the people of New Hampshire who wrote, ratified, practiced, and enforced the Constitution of New Hampshire for the first 35 years of the State of New Hampshire understood that those who have been wronged and aggrieved by the Judiciary of New Hampshire are entitled to request of the General Court of New Hampshire redress of those wrongs and grievances by petition or remonstrance; and
Whereas, the hearing of such petitions by the General Court of New Hampshire was a regular practice until the opinion of the Judiciary known as Merrill versus Sherburne (1 N.H. 199); and
Whereas, the opinion of the Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire in Merrill versus Sherburne never challenges the positive right of the people expressed in Article 32 Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire, but only the limits of separation of power expressed in Article 37 Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire and the definition of public grievance expressed in Article 31 Part First of the Constitution of New Hampshire; and
Whereas, the opinion of the Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire in Merrill versus Sherburne quotes only sentence fragments of the fundamental documents referenced “The Spirit of Laws”, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, “Federalist Paper 47”, James Madison, “Virginia Papers”, Thomas Jefferson in a manner so as to intentionally mislead the reader as to the intent of the authors; and
Whereas, reading the documents referenced “The Spirit of Laws”, Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, “Federalist Paper 47”, James Madison, “Virginia Papers”, Thomas Jefferson, in particular Federalist Paper 47 which states that the Constitution of New Hampshire was the one Constitution which correctly allowed for partial agency of one power of government in another power of government actually lead to the opposite conclusion as that found in the opinion of the Judiciary; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the General Court of New Hampshire finds that the opinion of the Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire known as Merrill versus Sherburne is repugnant to the Constitution of New Hampshire; and
That the General Court of New Hampshire finds that the opinion of the Superior Court of Judicature of New Hampshire known as Merrill versus Sherburne is utterly void and of no force.